operationalizing resilience for srinagar smart city abstract€¦ · srinagar smart city omar...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Operationalizing resilience for
Srinagar Smart City
Omar Bashir1
1RICS School of Built Environment, Amity University, Noida, India.
ABSTRACT
Smart City Mission was launched by the Government of India in 2015,
aims to develop 100 smart cities across India. The primary objective of
the program is to transform existing cities into smart cities by
incorporating urban renewal and redevelopment, both brownfield and
greenfield and retrofitting thereby making the cities smart, sustainable
and citizen friendly. The secondary objective of this program is to foster
economic growth through these smart cities, which in turn will have a
“rub-off effect” on neighboring cities and towns. India is vulnerable to
several types of disasters – natural and man-made and such a large-scale
program of urban renewal and redevelopment could have been useful in
make a selected few cities disaster resilient. However, the Smart City
Mission loses out on an opportunity to incorporate resilience in the
newly developed smart cities.
The focus of this study is the city of Srinagar in North India, which is
currently being developed as one of the Smart Cities in India. Srinagar
is one of the most disaster-prone cities in India. The city has developed
a detailed system with several layers of policies and procedures for
disaster management, but that system is majorly reactive in approach
and does not emphasize on resilience. Though several frameworks exist
for incorporating resilience at a city level, there are none for
operationalizing resilience at a city level. To overcome this research
gap, a detailed study was carried out in association with experts related
to disaster management and allied fields to develop a stage-wise holistic
resilience maturity model. Though cities face unique disasters, due to
their geographies, complexities, urbanization and culture, this
Resilience Maturity Model can be adopted by any city of the world.
INTRODUCTION
Srinagar, the winter capital of the state of Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed unprecedented
levels of unplanned urbanization over the past few decades. The population has increased
from 2.85 lakhs in 1961 to 4.57 lakhs in 1971, 6.06 lakhs in 1981, 11.10 lakhs in 2001 to
20.84 lakhs in 2011. (Nengroo, et al., 2017). Same is the case with rest of India where the
urban population has seen an increase of around 4% from 2001 to 2011 and is projected that
40% of total Indian population will be residing in urban areas by 2030, and nearly 50% by
2050. (Census of India, 2011). Globally as well, the trend of urbanization continues at a
steady rate.
In general, urbanization does not pose any threat to the environment or development,
however, access to several basic amenities is restricted by unplanned urbanization.
2
(Nengroo, et al., 2017). Further, if the urbanization is at a rapid rate it may lead several other
issues like lack of suitable dwelling units, slums, overburdened transportation system,
pollution, environmental degradation and an overall burden on the existing infrastructure.
(Aijaz & Hoelscher, 2015). In India, due to the lack of strict regulations and planning cities
have seems unorganized and unplanned growth. There is a large-scale migration across the
country from rural to urban areas, as urban areas provide better employment opportunities
and better quality of life. It is estimated that around 30% of the Indian population now live
in urban areas as compared to around 18% in 1960 (World Bank, 2020). This constant, rapid
and unregulated urbanization has led to the overburdening of existing city infrastructure.
(Bashir, 2020) which is an underlying cause of low FDI (foreign direct investment) in India
(Aijaz & Hoelscher, 2015).
NATIONAL SMART CITY MISSION IN INDIA
The National Smart City Mission launched by the Government of India in 2015 as
an urban renewal program to make existing cities citizen-friendly and sustainable. It
emphasized on development of core infrastructure; technological interventions and area-
based development. The basic objective of this program is to drive economic growth in the
100 selected Smart city which other cities can emulate. (Praharaj & Han, 2019) (Gupta &
Hall, 2017) (Smart Cities Mission, 2015).
SRINAGAR – INTRODUCTION
Srinagar is the capital and the largest city of the state (now Union territory) of
Jammu and Kashmir, the northern state of India. It is located at the foothills of the
Himalayas at an elevation of 1585 meters from sea level. The city is located on both the
banks of river Jhelum, which divides the city into two parts and is connected by 9 bridges.
The total area of the city is around 294 square kilometers.
The city is growing rapidly amongst all Himalayan cities (Bhat, 2008) and is
currently ranked at 92nd based on the annual growth rate for a period from 2006 to 2020
(City Mayors, 2006). The population of the city stands at 1,180,570 as per 2011 census
(Census of India, 2011). The density of population is around 4000 per square kilometer
(10000 per square mile). The average temperature varies from 23.3 C during summers to
3.2 C in winters. The city has several water bodies and wetlands.
SRINAGAR SMART CITY
Srinagar is one of the Smart Cities being developed under the Smart City Mission
of the Government of India. Srinagar Smart City project was approved in Round 3 of the
Smart City challenge held in April 2017. Srinagar Smart City “aspires to leverage its
Natural & Cultural heritage/ tourism, through innovative and inclusive solutions, enhance
the quality of life for its citizens”.
3
Figure 1: Location of Srinagar City (Ahmad, et al., 2017)
DISASTERS IN INDIAN CONTEXT
The vast and varied geographical expanse, geology, climatic conditions,
demographic divide, socio-economic conditions and rapid urbanization makes India
vulnerable to multiple disasters. These pose a great risk to the economy, population and
development of the country (Bashir, 2020). More than half of the total geographical
area falls under the “moderate” to “severe intensity” zone of earthquakes. Around 20%
of the area is prone to drought and 12% is prone to floods. India has a long coastline of
more than 7500 km which is vulnerable to tsunamis and cyclones. The mountainous
region, Himalayan and sub-Himalayan ranges are prone to snowstorms, avalanches and
landslides. (Metri, 2006) (NDMA, 2020).
Apart from natural disasters, India is also prone to manmade disaster like chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear proliferation. (NDMA, 2020). Further, it is also
vulnerable to health epidemics, political turmoil and terrorism due to the country’s
varied nature. (Bashir, 2020)
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
URBAN AREAS AND DISASTERS
Urban areas or cities are seen from the view of a rural-urban continuum in disaster
management research. This continuum includes villages or the rural countryside, towns
or semi urbanized villages, cities and adjoining satellite cities or towns, metros and
megapolis. Urban disasters are limited to the urban context. (Wamsler, 2014). A high
density of population is one of the main characteristics of an urban area, this is often the
main reason for increasing the disasters manifolds. (Malalgoda, et al., 2013). A disaster
can be defined as an unprecedented and sudden disruption (either short or long term)
which results in fatality, economic or environmental loss. (Bashir, 2020)
With cities growing larger and larger, the disasters have also been increasing in
magnitude and intensity in the urban areas. Research also suggests that urban disasters are
increasing in both in the terms of occurrences and human and economic losses. (Wamsler,
2014). This is true in Indian cities as well, the magnitude of disasters is increasing in terms
of losses and can be attributed to the changing built environment of the ever-growing
cities.
RESILIENCE AND URBAN STRESSORS
Resilience is often defined in terms of the system’s ability to resist and function
optimally during the period of stresses and threats (Satterthwaite, 2013) and how the
system recovers as well (Baum, 2015). The ability to resist, for a city depends significantly
on its built environment. A resilient built environment provides safety and protection to
the city’s physical and social environment (Haigh & Amaratunga, 2011). Using a holistic
approach of understanding the strengths, weaknesses, threats, risks, linkages, stressors and
relievers to make the city be able to better cope up with disasters. This leads to minimizing
losses – loss of life, property, environment and economy and helps the city to return to the
state before the disaster quickly and ensuring socio-economic wellbeing. (Hernantes, et
al., 2019) (Spaans & Waterhout, 2017) (Bashir, 2020). The World Bank has developed
the Resilient City’s Program intending to incorporate resilience in the cities around the
world. The vulnerabilities are categorized into five broad groups – Climate, Environment,
Resources, Infrastructure and Resources. To overcome these vulnerabilities the cities,
need to develop five broad groups – Governance, Institutions, Technical Capacities,
Funding structures and Planning systems. (Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction,
2015). For a holistic resilience to be developed for a city, it needs to be at three levels –
Individual level, household level and at the community level. (Satterthwaite, 2013)
From the urban planning view, a city can be termed as resilient if it can cope and
respond to changes during a disaster without much loss in functionality (Tompkins &
Hurlston-McKenzie, 2011). A resilient city needs to demonstrate resilience against four
categories of stressors – Natural, Economic, Technological and Man-made. Natural
stressors are usually unpredictable and uncontrollable. These include but not limited to
earthquakes, landslides, floods, droughts, cyclones, tornadoes. A city typically has little
or no control over these natural stressors. Natural stressors are majorly external barring
famines or droughts, which may not be truly external. Other three stressors – Economic,
Technological and Man-made are internal and the city has a certain extent of control over
these internal stressors (Desouza & Flanery, 2013). However, the control may not be
absolute and may vary from city to city depending on several factors – unplanned
5
development, growth of population, level of urbanization and dearth of resources. The
systems of a city are under a lot of stress due to the combining effect of these factors and
the four stressors. This combining effect extrapolates the magnitude and intensity of
disasters in urban areas. (Bashir, 2020).
RESILIENCE AND QUALITY
The overall quality of the built environment is one of the main factors which
determines the overall resilience of a city. Well-designed cities with good construction
are more resilient to disasters and have a greater chance of recovering from a disaster in a
short span of as opposed to a city with poorly designed and constructed built environment.
The poorly designed and constructed built environment, in some cases, increases the
magnitude of the disaster or may give rise to interdependent or secondary risks (Bosher,
2008). Even cities with the well-built and resilient built environment may have areas
where the infrastructure is poorly designed and constructed. These areas suffer the most
during the disaster (Satterthwaite, 2013). The quality of life in the urban area is dependent
on the built environment of the city. It is essential to incorporate resilience in the systems
of the city so that it not only copes and adapts to any disruption in a way that it remains
functional at a certain level during the disaster and its built environment remains intact
(Malalgoda, et al., 2016). Critical Infrastructure that is deemed necessary for the built
environment of the city must remain functional at an optimal level during the disaster.
Therefore, it is necessary to “design, develop and manage resilience” the critical
infrastructure in the built environment of the city (Haigh & Amaratunga, 2011).
Additionally, given the unique nature of the cities in terms of the built environment, it is
essential to consider city-specific needs while designing resilient solutions for the city
(Satterthwaite, 2013) which may include re-engineering the infrastructure to make it more
resilient so that it can cope any disaster (Malalgoda, et al., 2016)
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN INDIAN SMART CITIES
The Smart City Mission launched by the Government of India in 2015 is a program
of urban renewal and redevelopment of existing cities to transform them into smart cities.
It had given a chance for the cities to incorporate resilience in developing the smart cities.
However, examining the Smart City Proposals (SCP) of the cities submitted for the Smart
City Mission it is observed that only 30% of the cities have incorporated resilience in
some form but there is a lack of implementing holistic resilience in the proposals
(Bhatnagar, et al., 2018). The Indian cities are some of the most densely populated cities
in the world and are facing several stressors which have put a lot of stress on the already
existing infrastructures of these cities.
DISASTERS IN SRINAGAR CITY
The city, in the past few decades, has faced a spate of earthquakes, landslides and
floods, terrorism and is prone to multiple disasters. The recent floods in 2014 resulted in
the death of around 277 people and estimated property damage of around 5 billion rupees
(Mishra, 2015). The highest flood depth was around 32 meters. (Kumar & Acharya, 2015).
Srinagar falls under Zone V or “very severe intensity zone” of earthquake zoning in India.
Earthquakes occur frequently and are mostly of high intensity. The earthquake of 2005
6
measured 7.6 on the Richter scale was one of the very severe intensity earthquakes to hit
the region. Nearly 90000 people lost their lives and around 100000 injured (USAID,
2006). Given the topography of the city, it is vulnerable to landslides and mudslides. Apart
from natural disasters, the city is vulnerable to man-made disasters as well. The precarious
political situation has given rise to terrorism and violence due to which many people have
lost their lives.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study uses a mixed research method with both qualitative and quantitative
research techniques using research tools such as co-word analysis, semi-structured
interviews and Delphi technique. Since developing a model for resilience building
requires holistic participation of various stakeholders with different perspectives. Also, it
is necessary to know about the interdependencies amongst sectors and services to have
coherence in policies and plans (Desouza & Flanery, 2013).
The Risk Maturity Model presented in this study was developed in collaboration
with multidisciplinary expert’s form district administration, State disaster management
authority, State police, state fire and emergency services and the Smart City Limited.
These experts were a part of the pilot interview, Delphi technique and semi-structured
interview.
Table 1: Brief profile of the experts consulted in the study
Organization District
Administration
State
Disaster
Authority
Police Fire and
Emergency
Services
National
Disaster
Relief
Force
Smart
City
Limited
Ex
per
ien
ce
(yea
rs)
0 to 5 3 x x x x 1
6 to 10 2 1 x 1 1 x
11 to 15 1 x 3 1 x x
15+ x 1 x x x x
Total no. of experts 3 2 3 2 1 1
MAPPING WITH RESILIENCE FRAMEWORKS
The Srinagar Smart City Proposal (SCP) was mapped against two established
resilience frameworks to establish a benchmark. The Sendai Framework for Disaster
Reduction (2015-30) was adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a non-binding, voluntary
agreement that allows member nations to reduce disaster risk (Bashir, 2020). It comprises of
seven specific targets and four areas of priority. (UNISDR, 2015)
The Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) aims to establish a
hundred resilient cities around the world. Applications were invited in 2013, 2014 and 2016.
The City Resilience Framework developed by the 100RC, includes four priority areas, with
each priority, having three drivers (100 Resilient Cities, 2015)
The two frameworks were adopted before the SCP was prepared. The criteria of both
the framework were analysed and mapped against the Smart City proposal (SCP) submitted
7
to the Smart City Mission Challenge by using text analysis method. Further, a pilot interview
was conducted with experts from the smart city project to establish the correctness of the
mapping.
Table 2: Mapping against Sendai Framework
Srinagar Smart
City Proposal
Sen
dai
Fra
mew
ork
(2015
)
“Understanding disaster risk” Yes
“Strengthening disaster risk governance” No
“Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience” No
“Enhancing preparedness for effective response” Yes
“Effective recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction” Yes
Table 3: Mapping against 100 RC Framework
Srinagar Smart
City Proposal
100 R
esil
ient
Cit
ies
(2015)
“Provide reliable communication and mobility” No
“Provide and enhance natural and manmade assets” No
“Foster long term and integrated planning” Yes
“Promote leadership and effective management” No
“Meet basic needs” Yes
“Ensure public health services” No
“Ensure social stability, security and justice” No
“Support livelihoods and employment” No
“Promote cohesive and engaged communities” No
“Foster economic prosperity” No
“Ensure continuity of critical services” Yes
“Empower a broad range of stakeholders” No
8
DEVELOPMENT OF A RESILIENCE MATURITY MODEL
A maturity model is a hierarchical description of progress in various stages of
maturity (Wendler, 2012). The main use of a maturity model is to define the level of
maturity using multi-dimensional criteria which are used to derive action areas according
to priority and areas for improvement (Fleming, 2001) (Becker, et al., 2009) (Wendler,
2012)
Using different incremental maturity levels of resilience, the maturity model was modified
to depict different stages of incorporating resilience in the smart city. (Bashir, 2020). Using
progressive and systematic increments a Risk Maturity Model can be used to develop
incremental resilience in a city. (Hernantes, et al., 2019). Resilience Maturity Model
(RMM) used in this study used two parameters of judging resilience – likelihood of
recovery and Recovery readiness.
The stages of the Resilience Maturity Model are depicted below:
The maturity levels are defined below:
STARTING
This is the stage-I of RMM and there is no approach to incorporate resilience.
There is very little or no understanding of disaster and disaster management. There is no
clear policies or procedures exist for disaster management. The disaster management plan
may exist in a fragmented form and there is no chance that it may be useful to deal with the
disasters – unknown, unexpected or multiple disasters. There is no collaboration between
the institutions and the city lacks the technical capability to deal with any disaster.
Figure 1: Five-Stage Resilience Maturity Model (RMM)
9
MODERATE
This is the second stage of the RMM and there are some regulations and standards
which are developed to deal with disasters. Disaster Management plans exist and there is
some coordination between different institutions and there is an emphasis on increasing
awareness through education and training. There is a general understanding of the role of
critical infrastructure during disasters.
ADVANCED
The planning systems are much advanced backed by policies, laws and regulations,
standards with dedicated elements of disaster management. Greater emphasis on spreading
awareness in the community and involvement of academia in the development of
techniques for reducing disaster risk. The role critical infrastructure is well understood, and
measures are taken to improve the reliability of the critical infrastructure during disasters.
Their involvement of stakeholders is only limited to the planning stage.
PROACTIVE
This is the fourth stage of RMM, the disaster management plans are fully
developed, and integrated, other policies, procedures, laws and regulations are also well
developed, and the institutions of the city are actively collaborating and are proactive in
approach. The community is well informed and actively participates in mock drill and
training conducted by a group of volunteers. The stakeholders work together on the same
platform have a full understanding of developing resilience.
RESILIENT
The city can withstand any disaster – expected, unexpected or multiple and can
bounce back to its original state without much delay. The city can optimally function
during the disaster due to its reliable critical infrastructure. All stakeholder work on the
same platform and are engaged.
ADOPTION OF SMR AND RESILIENT CITY FRAMEWORKS
This study adopted the SMR framework (Smart Mature Resilience, 2016) for
operationalizing resilience. The SMR framework is developed for European cities and was
modified in collaboration with experts to be adopted for Srinagar Smart City keeping in
view the unique features of the city intact. Using the Delphi technique, the dimensions of
SMR framework were analyzed and using the opinion of expert it was combined with the
Resilient City’s Program of World Bank to develop a holistic framework for
operationalizing resilience.
The World Bank has developed the Resilient City’s Program intending to incorporate
resilience in the cities around the world. The vulnerabilities are categorized into five broad
groups – Climate, Environment, Resources, Infrastructure and Resources. To overcome
these vulnerabilities the cities, need to develop five broad groups – Governance, Institutions,
Technical Capacities, Funding structures and Planning systems. (Global Facility for Disaster
Risk Reduction, 2015).
10
CONCLUSION
Cities around the world, especially in developing countries are under a lot of pressure due
to unplanned and rapid urbanization. This is problematic when these cities face disasters.
The cities ability to cope with disasters is limited due to rapid unplanned urbanization. Indian
cities are currently undergoing redevelopment under the Smart Cities Mission and it provides
an opportunity to make the cities resilient.
Srinagar city is vulnerable to multiple disasters and there is a need to incorporate
resilience. There is an already existing system for Disaster Management in the city, however
it is reactive in nature. There is no provision of incorporating resilience in the city. As
Srinagar is being developed as a Smart City, it gives the city administration to incorporate
resilience in the new developments. However, there is a need to not only incorporate
resilience in the city systems but also to operationalize resilience. Though there are several
frameworks available for incorporating resilience at a city level, there is a lack of any
established study for operationalizing resilience. This study focusses on the development of
a holistic stage-wise framework for operationalizing resilience.
Table 4: Detailed Five stage Resilience Maturity Model (RMM)
Maturity levels
Dimensions Subdimensions Starting Moderate Advanced Proactive Resilient
Lea
der
ship
and
Gover
nan
ce
Development
and enhancement
of laws and
regulations (G1)
Develop a white paper
about the governance
approach at multiple
levels (GM1)
Develop
policies and
procedures
conforming to
National level
(GA1)
Develop
policies and
procedures
conforming to
International
level (GP1)
Establish
SOP's and
standards for
incorporating
resilience
(GR1)
Inst
ituti
on
Smart City
Authority Ltd.
(I1)
Develop a dedicated
team for looking at
resilience in the city
(I1S1)
Incorporate
resilience in the
mission and vision
of the Smart City
Proposals and other
documentations
(I1S2)
Setup a resilience
department with cross-
functional sub-
departments (I1M1)
Map the resilience plan
with those other cities
(I1M2)
Promote equality in
access to all sections of
the society (I1M3)
Develop a plan
to integrate
cross-functional
city departments
like
municipality,
fire department,
district
administration
(I1A1)
Map the
resilience action
plan with state-
level agencies
like State
Disaster Relief
Force and other
institutions
(I1P1)
Map the
resilience
action plan
with national-
level agencies
like National
Disaster Relief
Force and
other
institutions
(I1R1)
Pla
nnin
g S
yst
ems
Education and
Training (P1)
Conduct training
with city level
emergency team
(P1S1)
Develop a group of
volunteer citizen
group to be
deployed during a
disaster (P1S2)
Conduct regular mock
drills and training for
emergency teams and
volunteers P1M1)
Conduct mock
drills and
training for
emergency
teams and
volunteers
(P1A1)
Audit and
modify the
training
programs as
required (P1A2)
Conduct
Regular
educational and
training
programmes at
schools and
colleges (P1A3)
Conduct regular
mock drills and
training across
various city
authorities,
emergency
services and
educational
institutes (P1P1)
Develop
training with
other cities
(P1P2)
Develop and
conduct
regular training
and mock drills
for all sections
of the society
(P1R1)
Resilience action
plan
development
(P2)
Identify the
requirements for
city-level resilience
(P2S1)
Formulate a plan for
incorporating resilience
(P2M1)
Establish
indicators for
the assessment
of resilience
plan
performance
(P2A1)
Assess and
monitor the
efficacy of the
resilience plan
(P2P1)
Revise and
redevelop the
resilience plan
and monitor
the
performance
regularly
(P2R1)
Tec
hnic
al c
apac
ity
Reliability of
infrastructures
(T1)
Develop a plan to
assess the reliability
of critical
infrastructure(T1S1)
Develop a plan to
enhance the reliability
of critical infrastructure
(T1M1)
Develop a
contingency
plan for failures
(T1A1)
Develop a plan
for regular audit
of critical
infrastructures
(T1P1)
Emphasize on
continuous
improvement
of the critical
infrastructure
(T1R1)
Development of
partnerships with
city stakeholders
(T2)
Map relevant
stakeholders to
develop a resilience
plan (T2S1)
Develop a
mechanism to make
emergency
information public
ally available
(T2S2)
Develop a stakeholder
engagement plan
defining its roles and
responsibilities (T2M1)
Develop an internal
communication
platform for sharing
information with
different city authorities
and emergency services
(T2M2)
Develop a
common
understanding
of resilience
between the
different
stakeholders
(T2A1)
Involve
academia and
the scientific
community to
improve
resilience
planning
(T2A2)
Establish a
mechanism for
public
consultations to
receive
feedback on the
resilience plan
and modify
accordingly
(T2P1)
Involve all
stakeholders
developing,
modifying and
assessing plans
(T2R1)
Fundin
g s
truct
ure
s
Resources to
build up
resilience (F1)
Assess current
funding
opportunities for the
development of
resilience (F1S1)
Establish a disaster
relief fund for
emergencies (F1S2)
Provision for a
resilience action plan in
the local government
budget (F1M1)
Encourage
insurance
coverage
(F1A2)
Promote R&D
in building
resilience
(F1P1)
Incentivize
resilience-
building
measures
(F1A1)
15
REFERENCES 100 Resilient Cities, 2015. City Resilience Framework. [Online]
Available at: http://www.100resilientcities.org/resources/#section-2
[Accessed 10 February 2020].
Ahmad, T., Pandey, A. C. & Kumar, A., 2017. Evaluation of flood impacts vis-à-vis urban sprawl and
changing climate in Srinagar city and its environs. The Suresh Gyan Vihar University Journal of
Climate Change and Water, 1(2), pp. 38-46.
Aijaz, R. & Hoelscher, K., 2015. India's Smart Cities Mission: An Assessment. ORF Issue Brief,
December, pp. 1-12.
Bashir, O., 2020. Reducing Disaster Risks in Indian Smart Cities: A Five-Stage Resilience Maturity
Model (RMM) Approach. In: S. Ahmed, S. M. Abbas & H. Zia, eds. Smart Cities—Opportunities and
Challenges. Singapore: Springer, pp. pp 411-422.
Baum, S. D., 2015. Risk and resilience for unknown, unquantifiable, systemic,and
unlikely/catastrophic threats. Environment Systems and Decisions, 35(2), pp. 229-236.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. & Pöppelbuß, J. B., 2009. Developing Maturity Models for IT
Management. Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), pp. 213-222.
Bhat, M. S., 2008. Urban System in Himalayas: A Study of Srinagar City-Region. 1st ed. New Delhi:
Dilpreet Publishing House.
Bhatnagar, A. et al., 2018. Analysing the Role of India’s Smart Cities Mission in Achieving
Sustainable Development Goal 11 and the New Urban Agenda. In: W. L. Filho, J. Rogers & U. Iyer-
Raniga, eds. Sustainable Development Research in Asia-Pacific Region. Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing, pp. 275-292.
Bosher, L., 2008. The need for built in resilience. In: L. Bosher, ed. Hazards and the Built
Environment-Attaining Built-in Resilience. London: Routledge, pp. 3-19.
Bosher, L., Dainty, A., Carrillo, P. & and Glass, J., 2007. Built-in resilience to disasters: a pre-
emptive approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(5), pp. 434-446.
Census of India, 2011. Census of India. [Online]
Available at: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-
results/paper2/data_files/india/Rural_Urban_2011.pdf
[Accessed 03 February 2020].
City Mayors, 2006. City Mayors. [Online]
Available at: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_growth1.html
[Accessed 11 April 2020].
Desouza, K. C. & Flanery, T. H., 2013. Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A
conceptual framework. Cities, 85(xxxx), pp. 89-99.
16
Desouza, K. C. & Flanery, T. H., 2013. Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A
conceptual framework. Cities, Volume 35, pp. 89-99.
Field, C. & Look, R., 2018. A value-based approach to infrastructure resilience. Environment
Systems and Decisions, 38(3), pp. 292-305.
Fleming, M., 2001. Safety culture maturity model, Norwich: Health and Safety Executive.
Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015. Investing in Urban Resilience, Washington: The
World Bank.
Godfrey, S., 2008. What is CMMI?. Maryland: NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre.
Godschalk, D. R., 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review,
Volume 4, pp. 136-143.
Gupta, K. & Hall, R. P., 2017. The Indian Perspective of Smart Cities. Prague, Smart City
Symposium.
Haigh, R. & Amaratunga, D., 2011. Introduction. In: R. Haigh & D. Amaratunga, eds. Post Disaster
Reconstruction of the Built Environment: Rebuilding for Resilience. Oxford: Willey-Blackwell, pp. 1-
11.
Hernantes, J. et al., 2019. Towards resilient cities: A maturity model for operationalizing resilience.
Cities, 84(January 2019), pp. 96-103.
Kumar, R. & Acharya, P., 2015. Flood hazard and risk assessment of 2014 floods in Kashmir Valley:
a space-based multisensor approach. Natural Hazards, 84(1), pp. 437- 464.
Linkov, I. et al., 2014. Risk and resilience lessons from Venice. Environmental Systems Decisions,
Volume 34, p. 378–382.
Malalgoda, C., Amaratunga, D. & Haigh, R., 2013. Creating disaster resilient built environment in
urban cities: the role of local governments in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Disaster Resilience
in the Built Environment, 4(1), pp. 72-94.
Malalgoda, C., Amaratunga, D. & Haigh, R., 2016. Overcoming challenges faced by local
governments in creating a resilient built environment in cities. Disaster Prevention and
Management, 25(5), pp. 628-648.
Metri, B. A., 2006. Disaster mitigation framework for India using quality circle approach. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 15(4), pp. pp. 621-635.
Mishra, A. K., 2015. A study on the occurrence of flood events over Jammu and Kashmir during
September 2014 using satellite remote sensing. Natural Hazards, 78(2), p. 1463–1467.
NDMA, 2020. National Disaster Management Authority. [Online]
Available at: https://ndma.gov.in/en/vulnerability-profile.html
[Accessed 27 January 2020].
Nengroo, Z. A., Bhat, M. S. & Kuchay, N. A., 2017. Measuring urban sprawl of Srinagar city, Jammu
and Kashmir, India. Journal of Urban Management, 6(2), pp. 45-55.
17
O’Rourke, T. D., 2007. Critical Infrastructure, Interdependencies, and Resilience. [Online]
Available at:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6c17/b35ec7555a9f27d5ccb6ca1d357a20b5ce0a.pdf
[Accessed 09 February 2019].
Praharaj , S. & Han, H., 2019. Building a typology of the 100 smart cities in India. Smart and
Sustainable Built Environment, 8(5), pp. 400-414.
Pursiainen, C., 2018. Critical infrastructure resilience: A Nordic model in the making?.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 27, pp. 632-641.
Satterthwaite, D., 2013. The political underpinnings of cities’ accumulated resilience to climate
change. Environment & Urbanization , 25(2), pp. 381-391.
Smart Cities Mission, 2015. Smart Cities Mission. [Online]
Available at: http://smartcities.gov.in/content/
[Accessed 15 April 2019].
Smart Mature Resilience, 2016. Smart Mature Resilience. [Online]
Available at: https://smr-project.eu/home/
[Accessed 18 April 2020].
Spaans, M. & Waterhout, B., 2017. Building up resilience in cities worldwide – Rotterdam as
participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme. Cities, 61(1), pp. 109-116.
Tompkins, E. & Hurlston-McKenzie, L.-A., 2011. Public-private partnerships in the provision of
environmental governance: a case of disaster management. In: E. Boyd & C. Folke, eds. Adapting
Institutions: Governance, Complexity and Social-Ecological Resilience. Cambridge GB: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 171-189.
UNISDR, 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. [Online]
Available at: https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework
[Accessed 10 March 2020].
USAID, 2006. South Asia- Earthquake Fact sheet. [Online]
Available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/india/south-asia-earthquake-fact-sheet-25-fiscal-year-
fy-2006
[Accessed 17 April 2020].
Wamsler, C., 2014. Cities, Disaster Risk and Adaptation. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
Wendler, R., 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study.
Information and Software Technology, 54(12), pp. 1317-1339.
World Bank, 2020. Urban Population. [Online]
Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS
[Accessed 10 April 2020].